Allamong v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that an otherwise neutral law still violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is “motivated by ‘purposeful discrimination’”
• concluding that “reading ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity’” would not “comport with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ at the time of Title IX’s enactment”
• stating that the Spending Clause mandates that Congress give “a clear statement when imposing a[ny] condition[s] on federal funding”
• stating that the Spending Clause mandates that Congress give “a clear statement when imposing a[ny] condition[s] on federal funding”
• noting that if “‘sex’ [were] ambiguous enough to include ‘gender identity,’” then the “carveouts . . . would be rendered meaningless”
• distinguishing Bostock in analyzing Title IX in part because Title IX “is about schools and children—and the school is not the workplace.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).